Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other school professionals know and demonstrate the content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and skills, pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.
1.1 Huntington University's Teacher Education Program assures that candidates meet high expectations in content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, teaching skills, professional dispositions, and student learning. Each of these areas is related to at least one of the components of the Conceptual Framework (Teacher as Effective Steward). Additionally, the unit's candidates are required to construct lesson plans which reflect Indiana content standards. Candidates must reflect on student learning during field experiences, culminating in a formal Teacher Work Sample completed during the student teaching semester. Candidate dispositions are evaluated throughout the program: the program interview, all field experiences, crucial program checkpoints, and finally in the student teaching final evaluations. Assessments indicate that unit candidates consistently meet and exceed state, professional, and institutional standards in all these areas. In September of 2011, following a change in Indiana's policy regarding evaluation of its teacher education programs, Huntington University submitted its first ever program reports to national Specialized Professional Associations (SPAs). The chart found in Exhibit 1.3.d.1 gives information on each of the unit's programs and its program evaluation status. Details of the SPA reviews can be found in AIMS. This information is also available in Exhibit 1.3.d.2 which shows the 2008-2011 data filed in the SPA reports, plus the 2011-2012 data for all six assessments for each of the SPA reviewed programs. Both sets of data indicate that unit candidates consistently exceed state, professional, and institutional standards for content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and professional knowledge. Exhibit 1.3.d.1 also indicates that a number of the unit's program's were under-enrolled and therefore not eligible for program review. The Visual Arts program is the one non-SPA reviewed program with the requisite number of program completers in the past three years necessary for program evaluation. The Visual Arts program was approved by the state in 2012. The six assessments submitted to the SPAs for program evaluation have been collected for the Visual Arts program and may also be found in Exhibit 1.3.d.2.
1.2.b The following activities and changes have provided data to support their significant impact on the program, as well as assist in planning for the future.
Stakeholder input. The Teacher Education Professional Advisory Council (TEPAC) continues to be a great resource for the Huntington University teacher education program. Made up of teachers and administrators from the schools with which we place student teachers each semester, this advisory group has given sound feedback, advice, criticism, and encouragement for a number of years. Since the unit's full time faculty also serves regularly as student teacher supervisors, this interaction takes place on a continual basis, not just at TEPAC's once a semester meeting on the university campus. Input from these educational professionals in the past has influenced the unit to implement changes in curriculum. An example of this would be the addition of a designated course in classroom management and added required special education courses for all candidates. Stakeholder input also helped lead to dual programming options in both Special Education and Teaching English Learners. The most recent improvement to program quality coming from stakeholder input was the addition of required, stand- alone assessment courses for both elementary and secondary education majors. These two courses are being taught for the first time Fall, 2012 and will impact future candidates by not only giving them a better foundation for facilitating classroom assessment, but also by helping them navigate the myriad of local, state, and national assessments which they must implement, evaluate, and explain to students and parents.
Electronic database. Outlined extensively under Standard 2, the unit’s electronic database provides the objective data necessary for proper evaluation of individual candidates and the teacher education program as a whole. As a small program, we know each of our candidates through frequent classroom contact and field experience supervision. We discuss strengths as well as concerns on a regular basis, but having resources like dispositional evaluations from field experiences and lesson evaluations by classroom teachers and university supervisors aggregated and easily accessible, allows us to look more critically and constructively at areas that candidates need to target for improvement. The expansion of the unit’s electronic record keeping over the last 4-5 years is giving timely, objective, and ultimately more helpful feedback on candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions relative to expected standards. The unit is continuing to look for ways to expand the scope and use of its electronic database.
Teacher Work Sample. For several years, candidates had been required, as part of the student teaching seminar grade, to submit an “evidence of student learning” assignment. This usually consisted of a pretest and posttest given in conjunction with a series of lessons or unit of study. Gains in student learning were measured, graphed, and discussed. As the Education faculty discussed as a department and also with stakeholders, we came to view this as inadequate preparation for what our candidates would encounter in the classroom. In the spring of 2011, the Teacher Work Sample was added as a requirement for all candidates during the student teaching semester. We felt that the extensive background work and reflection associated with the TWS was a much better preparation for candidates’ entry into the teaching profession. Even with data from only three semesters, we are already seeing evidence that our students can indeed make a difference in student learning. This is encouraging to our students, but of greater impact to program quality is the increased focus we are seeing by our student teachers, not just on their planning and teaching, but on student learning.
Unit Assessment System. As the Education Department began to produce, gather, and aggregate more of its candidate data electronically, we started to notice gaps in some of the data reporting. As we examined the 4 point assessment system we had been using for almost 10 years, we found that it was not very efficient. While all the necessary assessments were present, the 4 point system had too many overlaps and too many ambiguities with regard to who was responsible for gathering and reporting certain data. By redesigning and implementing a new 3 point assessment system in 2011, the unit has eliminated the overlaps and uncertainties which previously hampered our attempt to efficiently track candidate progress in content knowledge, instructional planning, and professional dispositions. This may seem like a small change, but the resulting clarity for data gathering and evaluation is significant. The willingness of the unit to move away from the overall assessment system that had been used for about 10 years illustrates the unit’s commitment to program quality and candidate performance.
At the advanced level, the M.Ed. program is designed for already licensed classroom teachers who wish to continue their professional development and fulfill requirements for renewing their teaching licenses (see admission requirements). The program was created for currently practicing teachers, who already have a degree in education, a minimum of two years teaching experience, a current teaching license, and demonstrated professional effectiveness. Since the M.Ed. program’s students are already licensed and experienced teachers who have completed an initial licensing teacher education program, the program does not address content knowledge at the initial level. However, all courses in the program focus at the professional level on pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Program objectives focus on areas such as growing professionally, conducting action research, and developing into a reflective member of a professional community. Course objectives and program assessments are also linked to the NBPTS Core Propositions (See syllabi.)
1.3.a.1 2008 NCATE Accreditation Letter
1.3.a.2 Visual Arts Program Approval Letter
1.3.a.3 Low Enrollment Program Reviews email
|1.3.b||Title II reports for 2008-2009; 2009-2010; 2010-2011|
1.3.c.1 Lesson Evaluation Form
1.3.c.2 Field Practicum Final Evaluation
1.3.c.3 Student Teaching Final Evaluation
1.3.c.4 Guidelines for Portfolio Construction (Assessment # 6, Attachment 1 )
1.3.c.5 Portfolio Scoring Rubric (Assessment # 6 )
1.3.c.6 TWS (Assessment # 5, Attachment 1)
1.3.c.7 TWS Rubric (Assessment #5)
1.3.d.1 Program Completer Chart
1.3.d.2 Updated SPAS (11-12 info)plus Art Education Assessments
1.3.e.1 Dispositional Policy in Candidate Handbook
1.3.e.2 Teacher Education Program Candidate Interview Rubric
1.3.e.3 Dispositional Survey
1.3.f.1 Dispositional Survey Results
1.3.f.2 Sample Student Dispositional Scoring Rubric
1.3.g.1 Teacher Work Sample – Grade 2
1.3.g.2 Teacher Work Sample – Middle School – Grade 6
1.3.g.3 Teacher Work Sample – Secondary Algebra II
1.3.g.4 Teacher Work Sample – Elementary Math – Grade 2
1.3.g.5 Teacher Work Sample – Special Education – Grade 4
1.3.g.6 Teacher Work Sample – Elementary English – Grade 5
1.3.h.1 Portfolio Sample – Elementary/Special Education
1.3.h.2 Portfolio Sample – Middle School
1.3.h.3 Portfolio Sample – Elementary Education
1.3.h.4 ED 611 Sample
1.3.h.5 ED 520 Sample
1.3.h.6 ED 525 Sample
1.3.h.7 ED 577 Sample
1.3.h.8 ED599(2) Sample
1.3.h.9 ED 599 Sample
1.3.h.10 ED614 Sample
1.3.i.1 Follow-up Online Graduate Survey
1.3.i.2 Biennial Report (page 43)
1.3.i.3 Employability Report (PDF)
|1.3.j||Employer feedback on graduates and summaries of the results. Not available. Indiana stopped collecting and distributing this data in 2008.|
Data collected by state and/or national agencies on performance of educator preparation programs and the effectiveness of their graduates in classrooms and schools, including student achievement data, when available